Vlatka Periša1,2, Lada Zibar3,4, Ana Knezović5, Igor Periša6, Jasminka Sinčić-Petričević7, Igor Aurer8. 1. Department of Hematology, Clinic of Internal Medicine, Osijek University Hospital, Josipa Huttlera 4, HR-31000, Osijek, Croatia. vlatkaperisa@gmail.com. 2. Department for Pathophysiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Osijek, Josipa Huttlera 4, HR-31000, Osijek, Croatia. vlatkaperisa@gmail.com. 3. Department for Pathophysiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Osijek, Josipa Huttlera 4, HR-31000, Osijek, Croatia. 4. Department of Nephrology, Clinic of Internal Medicine, Osijek University Hospital, Josipa Huttlera 4, HR-31000, Osijek, Croatia. 5. Community Health Centre Đakovo, P. Preradovića 2, HR-31400, Đakovo, Croatia. 6. Community Health Centre Vinkovci, Ul. kralja Zvonimira 53, HR-32100, Vinkovci, Croatia. 7. Department of Hematology, Clinic of Internal Medicine, Osijek University Hospital, Josipa Huttlera 4, HR-31000, Osijek, Croatia. 8. Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Centre Zagreb and School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Kišpatićeva 12, HR-10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognostic nutritional index (PNI), an indicator of nutritional status and systemic inflammation, is associated with short-term and long-term outcomes of various malignancies. The prognostic value of PNI in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to determine the prognostic value of baseline PNI in DLBCL patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 103 DLBCL patients treated with R‑CHOP or R‑CHOP-like regimens. We evaluated the significance of PNI as a predictor of response to treatment, overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). RESULTS: Patients with a PNI ≤ 44.55, where the cut-off was calculated by receiver operating characteristics (Youden index) and the same was obtained for response to treatment with 76.2 % sensitivity and a specificity of 85.4 %, for OS with 72.4 % sensitivity and a specificity of 90.5 % and for EFS with 65.6 % sensitivity and a specificity of 90.1 %, had significantly worse 5‑year OS (18.3 % vs 86.4 %, P < 0.001, log rank test) and 5‑year EFS (15.1 % vs 82.3 %, P < 0.001, log rank test). Regression analysis showed that PNI ≤ 44.55 was an independent prognostic factor for response to treatment with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.88 for treatment failure, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.077-22.105, OS hazard ratio (HR) 4.24, 95 % CI 1.451-12.392 and EFS HR 4.007, 95 % CI 1.48-10.852. Lower PNI levels were found in patients with advanced Ann Arbor clinical stage (46.6 ± 7.77 vs. 52.7 ± 5.43) and in those with poor response to therapy (40.58 ± 7.26 vs. 50.67 ± 6.26). CONCLUSIONS: The PNI is a simple and useful marker to predict long-term survival outcome in DLBCL patients. Low PNI predicted poor outcome. A limitation of the study is its retrospective design in which the prognostic value was tested in the derivation cohort only. Notwithstanding, this is the first study suggesting that PNI is an important prognostic factor in DLBCL.
BACKGROUND: The prognostic nutritional index (PNI), an indicator of nutritional status and systemic inflammation, is associated with short-term and long-term outcomes of various malignancies. The prognostic value of PNI in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to determine the prognostic value of baseline PNI in DLBCL patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 103 DLBCL patients treated with R‑CHOP or R‑CHOP-like regimens. We evaluated the significance of PNI as a predictor of response to treatment, overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). RESULTS:Patients with a PNI ≤ 44.55, where the cut-off was calculated by receiver operating characteristics (Youden index) and the same was obtained for response to treatment with 76.2 % sensitivity and a specificity of 85.4 %, for OS with 72.4 % sensitivity and a specificity of 90.5 % and for EFS with 65.6 % sensitivity and a specificity of 90.1 %, had significantly worse 5‑year OS (18.3 % vs 86.4 %, P < 0.001, log rank test) and 5‑year EFS (15.1 % vs 82.3 %, P < 0.001, log rank test). Regression analysis showed that PNI ≤ 44.55 was an independent prognostic factor for response to treatment with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.88 for treatment failure, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.077-22.105, OS hazard ratio (HR) 4.24, 95 % CI 1.451-12.392 and EFS HR 4.007, 95 % CI 1.48-10.852. Lower PNI levels were found in patients with advanced Ann Arbor clinical stage (46.6 ± 7.77 vs. 52.7 ± 5.43) and in those with poor response to therapy (40.58 ± 7.26 vs. 50.67 ± 6.26). CONCLUSIONS: The PNI is a simple and useful marker to predict long-term survival outcome in DLBCL patients. Low PNI predicted poor outcome. A limitation of the study is its retrospective design in which the prognostic value was tested in the derivation cohort only. Notwithstanding, this is the first study suggesting that PNI is an important prognostic factor in DLBCL.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lymphoma, large B-cell, diffuse; Prognosis; Prognostic marker; Prognostic nutritional index
Authors: Lindsay M Morton; Sophia S Wang; Susan S Devesa; Patricia Hartge; Dennis D Weisenburger; Martha S Linet Journal: Blood Date: 2005-09-08 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: D H Kim; J H Baek; Y S Chae; Y-K Kim; H J Kim; Y H Park; H S Song; J S Chung; M S Hyun; S K Sohn Journal: Leukemia Date: 2007-06-07 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Yi Xie; Mohmad Ajaz Bulbul; Lingyun Ji; Casey M Inouye; Susan G Groshen; Anil Tulpule; Dennis P O'Malley; Endi Wang; Imran N Siddiqi Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Beate Pfistner; Malik E Juweid; Randy D Gascoyne; Lena Specht; Sandra J Horning; Bertrand Coiffier; Richard I Fisher; Anton Hagenbeek; Emanuele Zucca; Steven T Rosen; Sigrid Stroobants; T Andrew Lister; Richard T Hoppe; Martin Dreyling; Kensei Tobinai; Julie M Vose; Joseph M Connors; Massimo Federico; Volker Diehl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-01-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Claire Cropet; Martine Van Glabbeke; Catherine Sebban; Axel Le Cesne; Ian Judson; Olivier Tredan; Jaap Verweij; Pierre Biron; Inthidar Labidi; Jean-Paul Guastalla; Thomas Bachelot; David Perol; Sylvie Chabaud; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Philippe Cassier; Armelle Dufresne; Jean-Yves Blay Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Marko Lucijanic; Ivo Veletic; Dario Rahelic; Vlatko Pejsa; David Cicic; Marko Skelin; Ana Livun; Katarina Marija Tupek; Tajana Stoos-Veic; Tomo Lucijanic; Ana Maglicic; Rajko Kusec Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 1.704